|
From: | gchen gchen |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 05/10 v10] target-tilegx/opcode_tilegx.h: Modify it to fit qemu using |
Date: | Tue, 12 May 2015 08:43:59 +0800 |
For me, I still stick to uint8_t, since all callers and callee always treat it as uint8_t. It will make the code more clearer for readers.
> Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 15:06:48 -0700 > From: rth@twiddle.net > To: xili_gchen_5257@hotmail.com; peter.maydell@linaro.org; afaerber@suse.de; cmetcalf@ezchip.com > CC: riku.voipio@iki.fi; walt@tilera.com; qemu-devel@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10 v10] target-tilegx/opcode_tilegx.h: Modify it to fit qemu using > > On 05/11/2015 02:06 PM, Chen Gang wrote: > > On 5/12/15 00:01, Richard Henderson wrote: > >> On 05/10/2015 03:42 PM, Chen Gang wrote: > >>> -static __inline unsigned int > >>> +static inline uint8_t > >>> get_BFEnd_X0(tilegx_bundle_bits num) > >> > >> Do not change these casts to uint8_t. It's unnecessary churn. > >> > > > > For me, it is enough to return uint8_t, and the caller really treats it > > as uint8_t. So for the function declaration, uint8_t is more precise > > than unsigned int for return type. > > I don't want to argue about this anymore. Drop all the uint8_t and uint16_t. > > > r~ |
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |